The question has been asked: Does Wisconsin matter?

The answer is: Yes, for the Republicans. Not so much for the Democrats.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump has hit a wall. No, not that wall! A delegate wall. He may figure out a way to get over it but it will be far from easy. He has to roll up big victories in winner-take-all states and manage to defeat Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich handily. All this, when his poll numbers are tanking and his mistakes are mounting.

In Wisconsin, Trump won only 6 delegates compared to 36 for Cruz. There are 16 states left to vote and nine of them are winner-take-all or modified winner-take-all. Clearly, for Trump to go from the 743 delegates he has to the 1,237 he needs will require a string of victories, not just coming in at 30 to 35 percent of the vote. Yet, one would be hard pressed to assume that Trump will not come in at over 1,000 delegates when all the primaries are over. Cruz, of course, would have to romp and vanquish Trump and Kasich to reach the magic number. That’s unlikely, considering how much dislike there is for him within the Republican Party.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

I have been predicting the Trump demise since last summer, without much success, but I think it has finally come to pass. Will he drop out before the convention? Doubtful. Will he make the case that he is close to a majority, that he can motivate untold numbers of non-voters in a general election, that he can fund the campaign himself, that he will be the outsider the country is craving? Sure.

But, end of the day, we are facing Chaos in Cleveland. Members of the Republican Party establishment – or as I would call them, the adults in the room – do not want either Trump or Cruz. They not only see electoral disaster in November but they fundamentally believe that neither of these two candidates would be good presidents. The problem, of course, is that you have a large collection of very angry, dissatisfied supporters and delegates of these two men who would revolt if the convention chose a Speaker Paul Ryan, who didn’t compete, or a John Kasich, with his single primary victory.

But the longer this primary season goes on and the more Republican primary voters indicate they won’t vote for their party’s nominee, the more likely the Republican convention will finally turn to an alternative choice. Yet, the convention rules committee and the delegates will have to overturn a 2012 rule that requires a nominee to have won at least eight states to have their names placed in nomination. The so-called Paul rule was named after Ron Paul, who Republicans wanted to prevent from wreaking havoc on the convention that year.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]

If both Cruz and Trump are being denied the nomination because they have not reached the required 1.237 delegates on the first ballot, do you really think true chaos will not ensue? Are these two men the types who will accept being shunted aside and denied the nomination after all the primaries and caucuses are completed? When basically they have split votes, are close to the magic number, and every one of the other 17 candidates who started running for president so many months ago has been put out to pasture?

Elected Republican officials, not only in Congress, but across the country, will be calling for another choice in Cleveland but still, the faces that will be preeminent will be Cruz and Trump. The only remote possibility is that Kasich will rise, but he could not even score the required 15 percent in Wisconsin to get any delegates. It’s hard to see money flowing to Kasich or added enthusiasm coming to his campaign if he doesn’t win, place or show in these upcoming contests.

With Trump’s negatives among nearly every voting bloc reaching stratospheric proportions, does Cruz suddenly look acceptable? He is the pariah, the rather creepy, sleazy, unlikable extremist who has managed to survive the gauntlet. But no one trusts him, respects him, believes in him – at least none of the Republicans who have had to deal with him.

So, thanks to Wisconsin and thanks to Trump himself, his interviews with the Washington Post and New York Times, his out of control tweets and his disorganized campaign, the Republicans are faced with continuing chaos all the way to Cleveland. And, somehow, the American people just won’t notice and are going to escape the unraveling and destruction of the Grand Old Party? I doubt it.

Way back in 1980, when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were running for president, Bush heralded his Iowa victory by declaring he had “the Big Mo” — momentum — that would carry him to the presidency.

Other states and the math intervened, and he became Reagan’s vice president instead.

Bernie Sanders is talking a lot about the Big Mo after his victories in five western states. If I were in his position, I would probably be doing the same thing. It helps him raise money and continue the battle for the next several months.

But Hillary’s sweep of five major states on March 15th wasn’t exactly chopped liver either, nor were her overwhelming wins in southern states. The difference is that Hillary has been racking up the delegates. The math is on her side.

Right now, according to RealClearPolitics, she has 1,712 delegates and Sanders has 1,004 (including superdelegates). For Hillary to reach the magic number of 2,382, she needs 670 more. Sanders will need 1,378 – over twice as many as Clinton.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

There are over 1,700 delegates in upcoming states still to be chosen, plus over 200 superdelegates yet to declare whom they will support. Of those superdelegates who have declared, Clinton has 469, and Sanders has 29. That is a big math problem unless, somehow, delegates change their mind and support Sanders. Clearly, that is his hope.

But here is his problem: Even if he wins a number of states and scores some upsets, these are likely to be close races, and delegates will be split fairly evenly. From April 6 in Wisconsin until April 26 (with New York in between), there will be 710 delegates chosen. Other states include Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wyoming. Clinton is likely to win at least half of these delegates, if not more. None of the major states should be blowout races for Sanders, like the caucus states in the West. Or, for that matter, blowout states for Clinton, like the deep South.

[READ: Now Bernie Sanders Is Betting on the Establishment and the Superdelegates]

So for the sake of argument, let’s give Hillary Clinton 350 delegates between now and April 26; that brings her total up to 2,062, without additional superdelegates who may come over to her side. She will be 320 votes from the magic number of 2,382. If she wins 400 delegates in the next month, she will be only 270 votes short.

The pressure on the other 214 superdelegates to go over to the Clinton side will mount. Funny how politicians like to be the ones to put a candidate over the top or close to over the top.

The next big day with six states, June 7, has 694 delegates, with California selecting 475 and New Jersey 126. Again, assuming Clinton and Sanders are going back and forth winning states, Clinton will need only a portion of those delegates to secure the nomination.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Hillary Clinton]

If Clinton wins out in most of these states, pressure will mount on Sanders to unify the party after April 26, though he could easily choose to keep on until June 7. He will probably have the money, and he has focused a lot of energy on California. That is, rightly, his choice.

Clinton’s path to the nomination may have a few more curves and bumps, but it looks pretty straightforward. The delegate math is the delegate math. Barring a catastrophe for Clinton and superdelegates leaving her en masse, it is doubtful the trajectory of this race will change.

Despite talk of the Big Mo, it really is about the Big Math.

Shortly after Donald J. Trump announced for president, I published a blog post on these pages entitled “No Filter and No Chance.” This was followed by a number of pieces lamenting the surprising lack of substance evident in his campaign, the out of control ego and the sad descent into outrageous, violent, racist, sexist comments repeated with abandon. I, like many others, had predicted his downfall. Hmm, brilliant, right?

But now it is more clear than ever that Trump has all the makings of a George Wallace candidacy, only with less experience in government.

So how could this nasty, vitriolic blowhard become president of the United States?

According to Stephen Moore, the conservative writer, here is how he does it: “Trump is remaking the GOP into a populist/reform party of working class/evangelical and entrepreneurial class voters.” And Pat Buchanan writes: “A Trump campaign across the industrial Midwest, Pennsylvania and New Jersey featuring attacks on Hillary Clinton’s support for NAFTA the WTO, MFN for China – and her backing of amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants, and for the Iraq and Libyan debacles – is a winning hand.”

Thus, the bottom line for the Trump trumpeters is that he mobilizes large numbers of new voters who are angry and fed up with Washington, pulls in the Reagan working-class Democrats and independents, and carries states that have voted Democratic over the last 25 years.

There are several problems with this analysis.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]

First and foremost, Trump is not a candidate who is appealing to the majority of Americans – 67 percentcan’t see themselves voting for him in November, according to a March NBC/WSJ poll. He has a 25 percent positive rating and a 64 percent negative rating and is trailing Hillary Clinton by 13 points and Bernie Sanders by 18. (This was before the Clinton sweep of five primary states on March 15.)

Furthermore, 43 percent of Republicans believe he will be harmful to their party; 27 percent of all voters feel Trump’s version of change for the country would be right and a full 52 percent believe it would be wrong.

And even before most of the violence at the Trump rallies and the latest Trump rhetoric, 50 percent believe “Trump’s comments are frequently insulting and he has the wrong approach to the issues.” Only 18 percent believe Trump “tells it like it is and has the right approach on many issues.”

My guess is that these numbers are not going to get better as the campaign progresses but will only get worse for Trump. This is not a zebra who will change his stripes – if anything, the numbers will become more pronounced. Can you imagine the recording of Trump from Howard Stern’s radio show turned into political advertisements? More and more examples of his inconsistencies and outright falsehoods? His complete and total lack of knowledge about policy and failure to articulate issue positions?

He is also outright dangerous. Is this the person Americans want two feet from the nuclear codes?

Many of Trump’s supporters are arguing that he will bring to the polls millions of new voters – basically angry white males. Data on this is very sketchy given where we are in the primaries. There has not been a huge surge in voter registration beyond normal numbers and there is some evidence that turnout models may, in fact, hurt Trump and the Republicans, as Robert Schlesinger argues so persuasively in this space.

Here is a run-down of Trump’s problems:

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

Hispanics: Washington Post polling shows 80 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump. Romney got 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, Trump will be lucky to reach the upper teens. According to Pew, 48 percent of Hispanics voted in 2012 and more than 1.4 million new registrations have been recorded since 2008. Clearly, the number of Hispanic voters will only continue to grow. You better believe that turnout in 2016 will be closer to the mid-60 range for whites and blacks, not the upper 40s of the past.

African-Americans: It may be difficult to match the Obama numbers but given Trump’s treatment of blacks at his rallies and his talk of “political correctness,” it will be close.

Women: Of course, women will be a majority of the electorate in 2016. Trump’s problems with them, I believe, are just beginning. The more women see of him, hear of his past statements, view the treatment of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and others, the more they will be turned off by his antics. Never mind his position on issues affecting women, which will be highlighted and are of grave concern.

Millennials and younger voters: Sen. Bernie Sanders may have excited them, but it is hard to believe they will sit on their hands if Trump is the nominee against Hillary Clinton. Voters in this age group are growing fast and flexing their political muscle.

Educated voters: This is a serious problem for Trump. Turnout for people with advanced degrees is over 80 percent: about 75 percent for those with bachelors degrees, 64 percent for those with some college, a bit over 50 percent for those who are high school grads and less than 40 percent for those without a high school degree. Trump’s strength right now is with less-educated voters. The big question is: Can he put together an organization that produces a sea change in registering and bringing to the polls the less educated, non-voters? There’s not much evidence yet that he can.

Finally, as we all know, the electorate is more diverse with each passing year. Close to 30 percent of 2016 voters will be non-white. Given the failure of the Republican Party, and particularly Donald Trump, to appeal to those voters, this is a serious problem. The current and future demographics do not bode well for a Trump or any other candidate who fails to appeal to all of America.

It is still possible that Trump will not be the nominee, but most Republicans who are worried about their party are looking right now at a train wreck come November. And maybe for years down the tracks. Unless things change, 2016 could make the Johnson-Goldwater election of 1964 look like a nail biter.